State v. Singleton
| Decision Date | 01 June 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 762SC945,762SC945 |
| Citation | 33 N.C.App. 390,235 S.E.2d 77 |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
| Parties | STATE of North Carolina v. Alvin Duane SINGLETON. |
Atty. Gen., Rufus L. Edmisten, by Asst. Atty. Gen., George W. Boylan, Raleigh, for the State.
Moore & Moore by Regina A. Moore, Williamston, for defendant-appellant.
At trial, a voir dire was conducted to determine the admissibility of the marijuana seized pursuant to a warrant to search the premises. The affidavit accompanying the warrant stated, inter alia, that Deputy Sheriff Jerry V. Beach received information from a "reliable informant" on 11 May 1976 that defendant had in his home various drugs, including marijuana and LSD; that the informant "has seen drugs" in defendant's possession at his residence "within the last 48 hrs."; and that Beach had
Beach testified that the warrant was read to defendant when the officers arrived at defendant's home. Beach asked defendant to come with him to another room, whereupon defendant stated that he would fully cooperate with the officers. Beach advised defendant of his rights and asked him to turn over any illegal drugs in his possession. Defendant then stated that some drugs had come through the mail for another person which he opened by mistake. Upon request, defendant took the officers to his room and handed them a box containing the marijuana.
Defendant counsel attempted to elicit testimony from Beach concerning precisely when the informant had seen defendant with the drugs and what the warrant authorized the officers to search. The district attorney objected to both questions, and the objections were sustained. By his first and second assignments of error, defendant contends that the trial judge committed prejudicial error in refusing to permit these questions. We disagree.
Although the time the informant saw the drugs at defendant's residence is one component in the concept of probable cause, defendant is not entitled to know the precise moment they were seen, so long as the affidavit otherwise shows facts from which a magistrate could reasonably determine that probable cause to search exists. State v. Cobb, 21 N.C.App. 66, 202 S.E.2d 801, cert. den., 285 N.C. 374, 205 S.E.2d 99 (1974). The affidavit in the present case, unlike that in Cobb, narrowed down the informant's observation to within 48 hours of the time the warrant was obtained. We believe that the magistrate, acting upon this information, could reasonably conclude that there was probable cause to believe that the drugs were still in defendant's possession. As for defendant's question relating to the scope of the warrant's authorization, the warrant itself was the best evidence of its contents. Accordingly, it was not prejudicial error to overrule this question. Examination of the record reveals that defendant had a full and fair opportunity to adequately question Deputy Beach concerning possible defects in the warrant and affidavit. These assignments are overruled.
By his third assignment of error, defendant contends that the trial judge erred in finding that the warrant was valid and in overruling the motion to suppress. In order to establish probable cause to search based on an informant's tip, an affidavit must contain facts showing that there is illegal activity or contraband in the place to be searched and underlying facts which indicate that the informant is credible or that the information is reliable. Spinelli v. U. S., 393 U.S. 410, 89 S.Ct. 584, 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969); Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964); State v. Campbell, 282 N.C. 125, 191 S.E.2d 752 (1972). The affidavit in the present case alleged that the informant had seen the drugs within the preceding 48 hours and that he had provided reliable information in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Jackson
...observation of criminal activity and an issuance of a search warrant bolsters the reliability of a tip. See State v. Singleton , 33 N.C.App. 390, 392, 235 S.E.2d 77, 79 (1977) (holding that because the affidavit "narrowed down the informant's observation to within 48 hours of the time the w......
-
State v. Hammond, 20635
...warrants based on affidavits substantially identical to the one here have been upheld in the following cases: State v. Singleton, 33 N.C.App. 390, 235 S.E.2d 77 (1977); Torres v. State, 552 S.W.2d 821 (Tex.Cr.App.1977); State v. Albert, 115 Ariz. 354, 565 P.2d 534 (App.1977); State v. Elzie......
-
State v. Best
...State v. Maddox, 53 N.C.App. 1, 279 S.E.2d 852 (1981); State v. King, 44 N.C.App. 31, 259 S.E.2d 919 (1979); and State v. Singleton, 33 N.C.App. 390, 235 S.E.2d 77 (1977). In Beam, our Supreme Court held that an informant's statement that he had seen one pound of marijuana in a defendant's ......
-
State v. Moore, 8523SC871
..."weight" and their testimony was hearsay because they gave the result of what was shown on a scale. We are bound by State v. Singleton, 33 N.C.App. 390, 235 S.E.2d 77 (1977), to overrule this assignment of The defendants next assign error to the court's charge that if the jury found that ei......